HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.D. Robert Street Transitway Update ROSE\4OUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session Date: January 9, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: Robert Street Transitway Update AGENDA SECTION:
Discussion
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber, Senior Planner; AGENDA NO.
2. n.
ATTACHMENTS: Screening Criteria; Screen 2; Figure 9 - APPROVED BY:
Alternatives for Further Consideration;
Metropolitan Council Traffic Analysis
Zones (TAZ) — 2000; Metropolitan Council
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) — 2010 obJ
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss and Provide Comments on the Preliminary
Alignments for the Robert Street Transitway.
ISSUE
The City is participating in the Robert Street Transitway Alternatives Analysis (AA) to determine the
appropriate route and mode of transit between Rosemount and Downtown St. Paul. The other
communities involved in the AA include St. Paul,West St. Paul, South St. Paul, Mendota Heights,
Sunfish Lake,Eagan,and Inver Grove Heights, as well as Ramsey County and Dakota County
Regional Rail Authorities. The Robert Street Transitway Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) is
currently working to determine the preliminary alternatives for the AA and staff would like to review
the results with the City Council. Determination of the preliminary alternatives is an important step in
the AA process because only the chosen preliminary alternatives will proceed to full review and
analysis of ridership forecasts and cost projects. No other routes would receive a full review.
DISCUSSION
Eric Zweber, Senior Planner is serving on the TAC and the Mayor is serving on the Steering
Committee of the Robert Street Transitway. On December 6, the TAC reviewed the preliminary
alignments for the transitway and provided a number of comments on the initial analysis. On January
10, the TAC will review the revised preliminary alignments based on the comments received on
December 6. Following the TAC review, the preliminary alignments will be presented to the Steering
Committee before the full review of the preliminary alternatives is conducted. Staff would like to
review what is being discussed by the TAC to garner input from the City Council and prepare the
Mayor for what he will see at the Steering Committee. Staff has some concerns about how the
preliminary alternatives are being determined and how this may impact projections for transit ridership
from Rosemount.
The Robert Street Transitway's consultant, Kirnley-Horn,has developed three screening criteria to
determine the alternatives for further consideration.
• First Criteria: alignment is an arterial roadway or railroad with a north-south alignment.
• Second Criteria: ridership potential (i.e. density or transit dependent population).
• Third Criteria: best transit mode for alignment and length.
There are a number of alignments to Rosemount that met the first criteria,including South Robert
Trail,Akron Avenue,Blaine Avenue,US Highway 52,and both the Progress Rail and Union Pacific
rail lines. However, none of these alignments show any ridership potential due to low density
residential and employment in the area and therefore do not meet the second screening criteria. All the
above alignments do not progress to the third screening criteria. The Screen 2 figure attached to this
Executive Summary shows the areas with a density of more than four (4) units or jobs per acre. This
figure shows no areas of more than four (4) units per acre south of South St. Paul and no areas of
more than four (4) jobs per acre south of Thomson Reuters in Eagan. This analysis and screening
criteria is the portion of the study that city staff is concerned about.
The density shown on this figure is determined by each communities'2030 land use designations
within the Metropolitan Council 2000 traffic analysis zones (TAZs). First, the figure under represents
the future population of Rosemount because the 2030 Comprehensive Plan does not include any
development within the UMore property or within Rosemount beyond 2030. This is an issue of the
planning time horizon as future development will occur after 2030. Second, the 2000 TAZ districts
within Rosemount are too large to accurately represent the density planned within Rosemount.
Attached to this Executive Summary is a map of the 2000 TAZs.
There are only seven (7) TAZs within Rosemount and only three (3) of those TAZs contain any of the
urban development:
• TAZ 221 includes the portion of the City south of County Road 42 and west of South Robert
Trail.
• TAZ 222 includes the portion of the City north of County Road 42 and west of South Robert
Trail.
• TAZ 223 includes the portion of the City north of County Road 42 and between South
Robert Trail and Blaine Avenue.
TAZ 222 contains about 10,000 residents,but because the TAZ includes the rural residential area
north of Evermoor, the TAZ does not show developed density accurately. TAZ 223 includes
Harmony and Prestwick Place,but because it also includes the rural residential area north of Bonaire
Path, the Flint Hills buffer area east of Akron Avenue, and the future commercial and industrial uses
between Akron and Blaine Avenues, this TAZ will not show enough density to register in the
screening process. Due to the screening criteria, there are no transit alignments in Rosemount that will
pass the second screen.
To accommodate the limitations in the TAZ districts, an alignment through Eagan, Inver Grove
Heights, and Rosemount was selected that would connect to Thompson Reuters,Dakota County
Technical College, and UMore for an alternative review called a "sensitivity analysis". This alignment
is shown on Figure 9—Alternatives for Further Consideration,which is attached to this Executive
Summary. While staff is encouraged that this alignment is included for future consideration, care must
be taken that this alignment is treated as a viable option given future development opportunities.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the Preliminary Alternatives of the Robert Street Transitway and provide comments.
2
4
LE C
O 3
Q1 N a '
(..) co C
•E v
a
0
N
Q1
C fB L
ro T Q)
N
L N^'
W CO
Q = N •I CO
•N •V a- 4-+
Ce ("c$,� O C Q)C
co c
C C /L�
W S-
4-4
E C
W a' o .� i CO
N
CIJ 4-J
MIMI CO
c.. 0.) 4-, o .3..
cevvi cD co L C
0 a)
C
O U
O O
�
`
CD C N U or
0 ..c
v C t '
' CO
QJ } N E CL 0 o
Z
:E 0 C c! ��
OL N O C rx a
- Q U N
ti 5,
Z W
co
t O Qcg
+., c0 L C
N
W . U W �,
(n �4-I C N
N cB
0
3 C)CO 0 Q E v
N
C W ' C L C Q) J'cn_
Ce co C ro O L
H. ate' Q fd U N
e•0 4-1 La
CO c./ To u O C
+' C i = Q)
L
c�
Q1 E C co ?.
+a CU U co j =
}' A • O Q) M oZC
0 do .F' LL. CO I CL u�
No = -0 r W -a
�
m
L a) • • •
O. Y Li
z
v a CL,
E n =
C
LE N
+,
0
(1) N
U (a
.L E)
CI) as
N -0
'a C
C fa
R
L V
CU
Q U (% •'
I- C 'I'J
co EL
C C
c
4.+ 9
+'
> ...._
çj)MINK >
Q
Q
4n.. Q N
C• a1 N a-, c o
a1 C �, N
a) c C _C
Y
O
Z III:
N QC
f-c
Cg p v G� E v 0�
Z �' _� C
LE W N
U (n C a) r
cv CO(� t Q 1
3 a, a)
T
▪N - }+ 9
I � +
F— C a)CD
as
0 4-, La
cu 0 (, Q� +-, C
LJ 0 I
V♦ +� 0 +�
▪ C 0 Q o 0 >
a) .• p a-+ D Q 22 47, a
CC• " }
fill
cu 01: 4
0 aA •—, LL \ \ w
CU 0 N WJ
MI .
3 +, ca Q) • • • •
Q
cu a) Y Q
F— E o < (1) °C
c
LE _ 00
O co
+., 3 cc
CV N 4.+
U CO -C
•> 2 4A
J
f0
CC
-0 C m
c f0
CO f0
2 c0 N .i
= a 4U
= IP) •
s- •1••+
co cc
II
GU c c=R
c
co
4,IS N -0 c0 C'
RS C
Ce "
w a cc
L
al vii �1 DC +�,
0 c)
U N
CO
a) C �. .o
0 a)
` U
c 2.4
Y
o N N co
s- a� �V.+ et -
IIIIINNNIIIIii O U Q)
L °N° a, GC
4- f0 N 1.
W N a1 v)co
>, U 0 Q >,
° w 3 a
Ill
N
N Q E
Ce
C
_ m
CO T a)
E
F
V 4' E
E
N yV p CA
C W D a, F I o
.a-+ y
_0 a O a) N CU aJ ti
4- a t + O
U+. a) V O 0
O qp +>, •....., cc H c
00 0 o , ,
m WW J
CC
= +-J CO •1111111111110 N • •
O Q. s O z
C Q WI
IIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIPIIIMIMIMIMMIMIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIM
1
1
N o
cm
Z ~ y
W
W WW
CC
4
V OZ
C
....s.Iff n�: i'j U a c
— t
(7
1 i t
w , ,„.--e 0" ,, .. .%r E
^.0 U „‘
U t ' ,z I r- rn
E, Cl)
m C
I n C CC
Q , ax V N Q Q
g i.40 , i Z , ® E °O .0
U
_
°om=
W. �L < m c w °,
i a E \ °
lit �v
I "1' d ° o ,
! I ! i!iii w 0.f , , 11111 low U - o 8?m 3 -1"..-,8?..
.4.R:1'
go,,C ' a C V D Q .-, - E c,` c m R___ J 1 O ao
�.- ;� w 7 O aIu ,
rm - ,. —
,c cu a m e t4
I c
m^
Q, 0 y U O
``G m
IL m 3�} •• n E o s o E D I-
1 O�no\ ..4„,a 0 o G)
m o U . 0
____.,16., i'44.:- ,,,, ,:., i E . r / 7„, :9 a_ .. tip, 4, : ,...„ CL
J !A. 1V x� N W yµ
WI
, IIIMIM AIWA'. I. Ilk
DCRRA Jam" '``'
trans ortation
TRANSITWAY ALTERNATIVES STUDY
.....%milliE 1 , ,. 7,-
mi5
_,, ,,/, A ,
, J
5
1 t
c Legend
iii 1st
/ Alternatives
-,i r --- _
t__
Arterial BRT
tea — — - — l\ ', i
or
1 �`. Highway BRT
'
1 •••• C ---'LRT/Dedicated Busway
�U 55 I
` t , 1 Streetcar
L. i 1 F�1 Ei I
52
I Potential Express Bus/
Fi !
b/ 1 — — — Highway BRT
411p ii,a•, n9 i Service Extension -__..
(for sensitivity analysis)
5- 1 0 1
1 0 0.5 1 2 0
1 1 Miles
I ` l S ur.os
1 \ ..e d N•co is lIt a pO Ion Program,2010
Or \\ h Mal Bcu s aropoitan Council.2011
1 t Ro 3 s ':'nC T 2
• 1 E r no 03.1.Itn OE
/
1
i
-'. ....N...%<\.,
1 • i
•
IF
1__
1
t
1 `
j `�
1 r \
hi 1
1
in 1
------/
/ 52
Figure 9-Alternatives for Further Consideration
Preliminary Screening 23 January 3013
Technical Memorandum Revision 3
o
i LID-
Z
co
N N
N N
N
0
N
. 'y •
N
Lo
N
N
00
N
N
Q
J W
0
Z
� O NI
O
0 N
N "
Q
N
N J Z
O <
0U
Oii_
co
33 H \ O CD
a
E
1- Ni
0 Q
h'6%%%) I
;? N o
l'".*****44.....7:4.4%„..„....., ,.. W N
Z
8I Zc
TT:
L a
0
0
T
E.
CO - W E
;s o
o
U
n
N O m
N
E
i?' c
.,— n Ei
i
N ❑
n
A m
iiT
U
V7
5 3
_ —_ N
(1F-J _-4� N N -i if
LO CD
CO
N g cn
N CO
IN
N
N N N
t7
N
•
,,....„ . -.MI■......
Y
ii
v
N
..-----.
N o N
n. N
ID
J W
N U Z
Z
O
�
O
U �
7,
H Q
JOQ
N
CL U
CD `° O
N LL
CO I
N H Q O
LLJ fl 1! i (D ihi
O
N
N
f
afl
Q E
N
(O O H J1 J m N
o 0 Q V a Li c Z
.
r- O
o
a�
a�
e
i N
Y E
co It _ V + E
a U
M
m Lo
e
Ti
o=o E
co
Q1 j0 (`
a, ❑
co
r
LP E
N i CD t 5„
CD CO 0
6
5
p